The video shows the Christian group attempting to reason with the coffee shop owner, but to no avail. In fact, it only seemed to make him angrier according to The Liberator, and soon the owner :
“So you’re not willing to tolerate our presence?” Sutherland asked.
“Will you tolerate my presence?” the man responded. Sutherland assured him they would. “We’re actually in your coffee shop,” he said.
“Really?” the owner demanded. “If I go get my boyfriend and f*ck him in the a** right here you’re going to tolerate that?”
“That would be your choice,” Sutherland answered. But the owner would not be persuaded. “Are you going to tolerate it?” he asked again. “Answer my f***ing question! No, you’re going to sit right here and f***ing watch it!”
“Well, we don’t want to watch that,” said Caleb Head, another abolitionist.
“Well than I don’t have to f*cking tolerate this!” the man said. “Leave! All of you. Tell all your f*cking friends, don’t f*cking come here.”

My favorite part is when he threatens to sodomize his boyfriend in front of them. The LGBT activists used to claim it wasn’t about buttsex, but this guy seems pretty sure… it’s about buttsex

30 Comments

Washington state sued someone for declining to provide flowers for a same-sex ceremony? I hope someone asks the state officials (and the ACLE) what they plan to do about this.

It’s my opinion that people should be free to deny service to someone for any reason (with a few exceptions – emergency medical care or gov’t agency, for example). But if the lefties want to impose these rules, they need to be consistent.

Seriously, even leftists would find the manager’s behavior unsuitable.

Also, I think there is still a law on the books against public nudity in Washington, so the manager would be breaking the law and could likely get arrested for doing what he suggested the Christians had to not only tolerate but observe.

The left is hypocritical-look at how the MSM hasn’t covered this compared to Christian bakers, florists, and photographers. Compare the left’s reaction to Bill O’Reilly’s sexual harassment problems and Harvey Weinstein’s.

For the left it’s about collecting enemy heads not having a consistent moral or ethical standard.

His entire statement is irrational. They were not confrontational with him. It was the other way around. What I really don’t understand is why he had to bring up the anal intercourse issue at all. And then, imagine if it had been a group of Muslims and he talked about having anal sex with Mohammed. Imagine the outrage and how fast his establishment would disappear. But to speak that way about Christ is perfectly acceptable. It’s not just double standards…it’s purposeful and willful desire to completely turn anything they disagree with on its ear until there is no one left who disagrees with them on anything. How is he being oppressed by their lack of desire to see him penetrate his boyfriend? I wouldn’t want to see it either, and I am gay!!! Evil, stupid people!

Knowingly or not, this radical is playing the perfect Saul Alinsky game plan. Alinsky, the wet nurse of modern American radicalism, emphasized the supreme importance of language in framing a political issue.

The first job is to “create the issues and problems” by naming them: in this case it is “Tolerance.” Once the issue is named, you keep the heat on it. You own it. Through ridicule, you make it too hot to handle in a counter attack. Not to be tolerant is to be intolerant, bigoted and mean. You make it easier to acquiesce than to resist.

There was Mao-speak and Lenin speak and the Language of the Third Reich. This is PC speak and its purpose is to block alternative views. PC speak owns “tolerance” and controls its definitions. The PC speaker worships tolerance and hates the violation of their special definition of PC tolerance. That keeps ordinary people for coming to their own definition of tolerance.

PC speak avoids public debate concerning their PC speak and and they shut off debate with a dictatorial fervor. As a consequence, they are the very fascists they claim to abhor.

The coffee shop owner is a certified “victim” and he has called out those who have taken a stand against tolerating his actions as a gay. He is painting them as NOT tolerating what is none of their business. They are trying to crush him with some sort of deity piousness which does not apply to him because he doesn’t accept the deity or the piousness. Therefore, they are trespassing on his personal business and they are unwelcome.

If the same PC radical left had allowed proprietors to “discriminate” in terms of who they would serve and who they would not, this coffee-shop wizard could ban anyone for any reason.

I am on his side. If he wants gays only, let it be, let it be, let it be. Its his cash register and his business plan and his little world. Christians have no right to try to burst his bubble. Even if he bans them on looks alone, it is his choice.

On the other hand, I am opposed to acquiescing to Hollyweird, academia, the mainstream media and DemonizingRats in their drive to impose PC speak on the public square.

The coffee shop guy is a jerk. He has no more “tolerance” than Genghis Khan. It is clear he thinks with, lives for and worships his butt. Forget morality or ethics, he is a raging hedonist with a very vacuous reason to live. What is his epitaph? “Here lies a worn out butt. Dead and soon forgotten.”

And I am in favor of the Christians boycotting his coffeeshop on the public sidewalk and clearly expressing their disdain for him. It ain’t the prettiest form of debate, but it is debate.

Caytie Davis and her fellows had been handing out pro-life pamphlets that targeted the homosexual community for the spread of the Gospel. I won’t pretend that the pamphlet’s designs and words were fully geared for opening up discussion with the gay community without agitation first — you can check out the pamphlet for yourself at The Liberator

@ TnnsNe1: I prefer Indian men, actually. Going to a university that has a very large population of both Arabs and Indians, the Arab men seem insular and reluctant to adapt to the host culture; Indian men seem much friendlier and outgoing. There’s something about their enthusiasm that I find endearing.

In India, there’s cultural precedent for guys getting touchy-feely, even “helping a buddy out.” Homosexuality has traditionally been viewed in terms of acts in India; the first English translations of the Kama Sutra excised all references to sexual congress between members of the same sex, but the original text mentions sexual acts between men and between women very matter-of-factly.

@9 Heliorope, yes. That is the modus operandi of the Left, and frankly, envious people in general. Your explanation is perfect. The logic would fry their brains. But that’s why they cannot let these sorts of words be seen, heard, and if they can help it, even thought. This is their kryptonite.

RGB @ #9: I am glad you agree. Don’t you find it frustrating that only Tucker Carlson seems to care to catch them at their game? In my opinion, repeating what they are trying to get away with over and over eventually gains traction with others and the framing the definition tactic becomes old and subject to mockery. Like Reagan: “There you go again.”

From what I’ve read, these bible thumpers were booted for handing out religious propaganda both outside and inside his store. By law, the merchant can boot someone else if they are being disorderly or disruptive.

In the Oregon baker case, the baker was sued b/c Oregon has laws protecting gay people from discrimination.

Business owners in more than half of the states can discriminate against gay people for supposed “religious reasons”, However, in NO state can a merchant discriminate against some religious person b/c the owner is an Atheist or is gay or is mulsim etc. TOTAL double standard. Christians are the majority in this country. They always do what they want why do they need to be protected?

One more important point: If you are honest with yourselves, you will admit this “religious freedom” nonsense is BS. Unless the patron asks the same sex owner to have sex w/ them, what skin is it off their back to provide them a service?

Is your faith that fragile that baking a cake for a gay person going to emotionally wreck you and send you into a deep spiral?/ “love thy neighbor” – Christian, indeed.

“but the pamphlet’s blunt message aside, the group did not bring it into the coffee shop with them.”

Kyle, is the coffee shop owner’s sexuality so fragile that a pamphlet sends him into a rage? Come on, you can’t possibly be defending that sort of behavior from an adult? If so, you have no reason to e upset when the Senate GOP has a working majority and Trump gets a second term. This guy is going to be the face of the Progressive movement and he ain’t pretty.

Kyle, should Muslims be forced other handle pork and alcohol while they are working? If not, why not? Should Muslim bakers be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings? How come me the LBGTQXTYFEYHVXTGB haven’t targeted those bakeries?

Actually, I’m not as offended by this group being asked to leave as by the way the owner did it, which speaks more about his lust for power over others b/c he knows he can get away with it. That’s where this is wrong and why this direction we’re heading in for the USA is disturbing.

Now, I really would like to see people quit this nicety crap and if they truly want to fight back, tell dumb-asses like this shop owner to “bring it on, drop your drawers, and bring the boyfriend out and let’s see what you got. Go for it. And we won’t leave until you do so and we are thoroughly satisfied at what you prescribed for us. We insist.”

General pussy-footing around isn’t going to make things better for true freedom in this country until we can stand up to people who think they can be disturbingly rude while supposedly operating within their legal rights. I even wonder if there are laws allowing a person to physically defend themselves against someone who is cursing at them, like this shop owner was? If so, then a good slap in the face would have been a justifiable answer to his lewd outburst.